Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
588 wrote:

Both restricted and prohibited airspace are "sterile." Actually,
military aircraft also should not be in *prohibited* airspace, OTW, it
is *restricted* airspace.

Legally, restricted and prohibited airspace are not the same things.
Both are examples of special use airspace, and are regulatory in
nature. There shouldn't be any aircraft operating in prohibited
airspace unless they have authorization from the using agency, be they
government or civilian. There can be all sorts of aircraft operating
in restricted airspace, even civilian ones with authorization. You may
also find artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles in restricted
airspace, amongst many other aerial hazards. Legally I don't think
there's any such thing as "sterile" airspace. For every type of
airspace prohibition there's an exception that allows somebody to
operate there.


MOAs, Warning areas and Oil Burner routes are joint use, so we can
expect anybody to be there legally.

From AIM 3-4-5:

"a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits
established for the purpose of separating certain military training
activities from IFR traffic. Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through a MOA if IFR
separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic."

Note the emphasis on separating military activities from IFR traffic,
not VFR traffic.

Note also that MARSA may be in use on low level training routes and
MOAs and that a military controlling facility that may be using MARSA
may not be able to communicate with civilian aircraft. Also there are
both IFR and VFR low level training routes and procedures differ for
each.


John Hairell )